High Court Karnataka High Court

Chandra Karvi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Chandra Karvi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
114 THE man com? or xammmxa. xr  5 J" 

DATED mm mm 28" on 93 QQAY     

PRESENT

mm Hozrsm nm. P.D. nzmimgnfi; 'arias?  

AHD _ _ _ V
ma: Horrnw uR;;:Isr--tcE; .i?.:§,3iia1:AH1T
max? mT1'rromxo.73§«q:T&_7$big1*i~1é§.' ;;a5'u--Mxs)
nm*wEE1;'¢=         = 
Aged about 46    _
S/0. late Govginda  2
Contractor, mgiding at',  *

Byramma Kripa,  Psfiét,  
Kundapura Talui-z, Udupi Di:~;tr§ci;;_ ..PE'I'f'I'IONER

;('BY SI'i  Shetty, Aévocate.)
  V V . .. ..... ..
1) Tnc%sm 
Repmaented h3i"its'TI=Sec1'etazy

'  "vDepa1'l:a:a;ent.Mi;ig:s; as Geoiog;

MS. Building

 ;3A_;3GAz,oRV:_E,'i~- 1.

  'FEix";§V'E}it:t:u£§:*x)r of Mme' s as (being,

_ Tija' Bhavan, Race Course Road,

V"   -- O1.

 L' i 3}. _'_'I4'}';csc Executive Engineer,
 Parts and Fishes-ises Department,

 Udupi Division, 
Udupi, Udupi Distxict.  ..

 



4] The Chief Oficer,
Town Municipal Councfl,   
Kundapuza Taluk, Udupi District. '

5) The Executive Engineer
FWD Department,
Mangalore Circle, Mangaiorc,

T D.K. District.

6) The Executive Engineer  ~ 7
Panchayath Raj Department', '  '   
Mangaiorc Circle, Maagalore, * _ f
D.K. District.   "

7) The Com.m1ss1on.:c:}f   .   
City Muncipal flozpotflfian   '

Udupi, Udupi Ugsnnca;  

8) The Exec1i'§*ivc=   *
Prime Ministcr "'!il]a'.g§: %é.ak..,__  
Scheme, Udupg Ur.1upi_ Taiuk  Disfiict.

9) The  Enghiséf, V
 Depaxtnizazfg-oi' Minor Irrigation
'Mangajozc, i:~.,I<:,u aismzct.

 xomle Exs;¢ugm?e
 ' ..__ . , V Taluk Panchgyahfi '
* I<§.undapa11a.--__'I'aink, Udupi Disuict.

  %  smmmy,
'   Development Board,
 Read, Shimoga -- 577204.

 _ Sfiecnetar-_v,
 Panchayath,

 U _ ,4  4. ' ~ -Salig'ama, UdupiTah1k & 

 Distmt. g_%__MMw~»"'-



he is not tiabie to pay any royaity to the rerspondents,...._E§c§§te§*e:',_
the respondents are deducting royafty from   K 

petitioner without authority of saw. He;ntée’,e::§esLe’ tepgétkititgnis}
praying not to deduct the royaity from
in respect of the matertais procured’V–him.”frer{} ebetrcec

for execution of the civil convtract werkssti

2. In simiiar matters, m:stco;,;t 1:iI§”..¢¢é;§f.5..x.’-‘(OMAR AND
omens v. stare c%x§;gn;AfAj;<e %Axafomens in Writ
9etitions No. of on 31"' October,
1994 has iafti' to the payment of

royalty by the"c9ntrect9fsA§.%jVTtnVe are extracted hereunder:

_(a) V, Where the material (subjected to
t " . i£;~.t_fhe regeonsibility of the contractor and
T. provides the contractor with

* areas, for extraction of the

. réquirF:ed'c£:nstr¢1ctian material, the contractor will

n be fiafie to pay royalty charges for the material

Vt.' .V(fé1inor mineral) extracted fram such areas,

% AA"§i)'fe-spective of whether the contract is a item rate
" ~ "contract or a lump sum contract. Hence
deduction of myaity charges in such cases will' be

3

the Department wit! be bound to refund any
amount so deducted or coliected to the contractor.

(:2) Subject to the above, collecticn of myalty c»g%:+;i¢

Department or refund thereof by the Depaftmeffi

will be governed by the terms of contract. .. .. fa > «

(I) Nothing stated ahéva shélt at a
direction for refund ih fgarticular
contract. The :Dep3ff??fiéfif: tvnoemed
shall decidgcit gnttwht-¢ner;omy is to be
deducted pr tzstany is already deducted,
whetherit. §f§ou}€ii-:5-we “néfuhdétitttkéeping in View the
abové..Apr§ncig§Ié3′:’ajhd.t ofthe contract. ”

Th¢«.5g.g~’,e’zvvici~ dec§é;lo–nth_aO$A.been upheid by the Division Bench

of”t_l{2iS;Cn:L;It.’:’_i§a gase of OFFICE OF THE DIR£CTOR OF

DEPA’RTia.E9tT:’AVfi!r”‘ éitiuss AND GEOLOGY v. M. MOI-IAMMED

‘<1;-Ihcsae Afipeae No. 330 of 2006 disposed of on 25*"

¢j".Sé§§t§:rnb&r§ 2606.

4. Following the judgment of this Court

Appeai Ne.83O of 2006 disposed of on».25_”§’ V

these writ petitions are also disposed off»’Nc; _orflef’a$”t§ 77

3A.%%C}_1%ie%f}AiJustic1e,V

Slab]
Index: Yes] No. V. ‘V

web x A ….. .. H